INVESTIGATING THE VALIDITY OF PHD ENTRANCE EXAM OF ELT IN IRAN IN LIGHT OF ARGUMENT-BASED VALIDITY AND THEORY OF ACTION

Although some piecemeal efforts have been made to investigate the validity and use of the Iranian PhD exam, no systematic project has been specifically carried out in this regard. The current study, hence, tried to attend to this void. As such, to ensure a balanced focus on test interpretation and test consequence, and to track evidence derived from a mixed–method study on the validity of Iranian PhD entrance exam of TEFL (IPEET), this study drew on a hybrid of two argumentbased structures: Kane s (1992) argument model and Bennett s (2010) theory of action. Resting on the network of inferences and assumptions borrowed from the hybridized framework, the study investigated the extent to which the proposed assumptions would be supported by empirical evidence. It also examined the unintended consequences that may possibly be revealed through this validity investigation. Three sources of data informed the present study: (a) Test score data from about 1000 PhD applicants taking IPEET test administered in 2014, (b) questionnaires completed by university professors and PhD students of TEFL, and finally, (c) telephone and focusgroup interviews with university professors and PhD students of TEFL, respectively. The results from the analysis of mixedmethod data indicated that all the inferences proposed for this study were rebutted, suggesting that some unintended consequences have happened to the technical as well as the decision quality of this test, hence its invalidity. Findings also provided valuable insights and suggestions for the betterment of the present content and current policy of IPEET in Iran.